It's Our Own fault!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Preamble?

"endowed by their Creator...." Natural right.

Natural right to machine guns? Like the old joke about the woman who agrees to sleep with the guy for a million dollars but refuses to do it for a hundred. "We've already established the principle, now we are arguing over details."

But the Devil is in the details. Govt has the authority to regulate our property. We gave it to them. (Consent of the Governed....)

Don't agree with most of what the Govt does with this authority? Fine. Neither do I. But until/unless we can change the laws, this is where we are, for better or worse.

This is the downside to Democracy, the fact that the majority of the people get to determine the general course of events. This is also the upside of Democracy, depending of course, on where you stand on a paticular issue.

I personally would like to see the gun laws return to the pre-1934 status. People should be allowed to own such arms as they see fit (or anything else for that matter), and be severely punished if they harm others.

And before anyone goes to the length of arguing about a "right" to own nuclear weapons, (as often happens in an attempt to show the "idiocy" of the argument), we do own nuclear weapons, in the colletive sense. We just don't allow indivual citizens to keep them at home. That is one of those details.
 
"endowed by their Creator...." Natural right.

Natural right to machine guns? Like the old joke about the woman who agrees to sleep with the guy for a million dollars but refuses to do it for a hundred. "We've already established the principle, now we are arguing over details."

But the Devil is in the details. Govt has the authority to regulate our property. We gave it to them. (Consent of the Governed....)

Don't agree with most of what the Govt does with this authority? Fine. Neither do I. But until/unless we can change the laws, this is where we are, for better or worse.

This is the downside to Democracy, the fact that the majority of the people get to determine the general course of events. This is also the upside of Democracy, depending of course, on where you stand on a paticular issue.

I personally would like to see the gun laws return to the pre-1934 status. People should be allowed to own such arms as they see fit (or anything else for that matter), and be severely punished if they harm others.

And before anyone goes to the length of arguing about a "right" to own nuclear weapons, (as often happens in an attempt to show the "idiocy" of the argument), we do own nuclear weapons, in the colletive sense. We just don't allow indivual citizens to keep them at home. That is one of those details.
Click to expand...

Nicely said.

I would also expand on what you are saying. It is not by the barrel of a gun that we the people will change the gov't of today. Like it or not change will only come from within the system not from outside. Arguing from the extreme, only pushes the middle further away from supporting the 2nd.

There needs to be balance and prudence to the approach.
 
Geewhiz Golly Wally, and here I thought every Federal Gun Control Law passed since 1968 was a result of controlling the power of an armed populace and narrowing the channels through which said populace could easily and lawfully pass. Reconstruction? Why not?

Re: 68 GCA:
Might have been the Lee Harvey Charles Whitman James Earl Ray Abbie Hoffman crowd. It could've been Sirhan Sirhan. Could've been the Malcom X crowd. Maybe even an idea to let the anti-war crowd of the era know their place and keep to stuffing flowers down the rifle barrels of the National Guard on campus. Or maybe simply an attempt to stop (or slow) future assassinations of leadership figures by making access to certain goods a little harder and more difficult due to the new paper trail required to stop crime. I do remember there was some scared peoples screaming for someone to do something.

Then again it created an opportunity for certain people to make money by becoming licensed FFL's, Attorneys and ATF agents, each of whom might profit from further legislation enacted, enforced and defending those affected by it; all in the name of... safety for the children (that's you and me in the eyes of the gov't, by the way). The paper trail requiring those who now had to learn to read sign whilst tracking down ner-do-wells and malcontents requiring someone to originate same, look over shoulders every now and then and interpret it in court if need be. These things cost money ya know.

Each further attempt to legislate Gun Control only further narrowed those legal channels citizens who owned arms could safely pass whilst again allowing a certain few to make yet more money enacting, enforcing and defending those new laws. (All good legislation should allow someone to make some money while controlling others)

How many Billy Bobs had used a newly manufactured and registered submachine gun to commit heinous acts against the community between 68 and the 86 FOPA? (I don't know the answer but I'd bet they were few and far between)

But then again, how many Senators, Congressman, Harvard or Yale Law Professors owned, shot and competed in Hi-Power matches with AR-15's at Camp Perry before said firearms became legislated as "Assault Weapons" by the Omnibus Crime Bill of '94? (and who really needs more than 10 rds or flash hiders/pistol grips or bayonet lugs to compete in hi-power anyway?)

Or was it the NRA in a Machiavellian attempt to gather more moola and power in DC? :rolleyes:

So it may be that WA has yet another valid point... or at least one worthy of argumentative discussion. No intellectual elites here boyo. Just someone who likes to go shooting now and then with a room temp IQ. (A man's got to know his limitations... I heard somewhere once upon a time. ;) )
 
That presupposes that there is a creator....
Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers thought that there was, and wrote the Constitution with that in mind. There are numerous references, both in the laws formulated as a result, and in their private writings to support their belief in a supreme being.

The belief that the gun rights movement is populated by "conservative middle class white Christian with a lot a latent racism and the impression he's being downtrodden" and the "overtly racist redneck hillbilly who's still pissed off that the South lost and that states don't have the right to decide for themselves if people should be property and women should be able vote." Or possibly "patriotic American who believes that maybe the Bill of Rights shouldn't apply if it means we can catch more terrorists" is, in and of itself, a racist statement. A disgusting one at that.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. We purposefully amalgamate the worst behavioral traits (that we can imagine) of a particular group, representing an idea that we disagree with, and then use that "worst-case" fantasy to paint everyone we're opposed to with the same broad strokes. It is NEVER the truth, and it usually back-fires in the end.

The idea that there are "so many" supporters of the Second Amendment who aren't MENSA members, but are barely functional, is stupid, inaccurate, and counter-productive. Not everyone who opposes the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment is a flaming Liberal, either. The truth lies in between. Blaming "us" for the political agenda of the MSM, and their distortion of the average supporter of the Second Amendment, shows only a poor grasp of why this occurs.

Juan Carlos, you have a basic grasp of what people think. However,a racially tainted ability to communicate it. The fact that Blacks and Latinos are represented as the source of violence in the majority of urban problems. The major purveyors of illegal drugs, guns, and the largest players in calls for the overthrow of the elected government would lead a less prejudiced person to present that as a major factor in the fear of unlimited possession of firearms in the civilian sector. The FBI Uniform Crime Report, the DOJ studies, and the various scholarly works from the Universities all reflect those facts.

Let's leave the colors of skin out of your treatise, as well as the amorphous "Christian" heading. As the vast majority of the inhabitants of the United States fit into some part of your denigrates class. Yet, they don't preach, or practice, violent behavior, or advocate the overthrow of the existing government, you're on shaky ground. The very politicians you speak for are a part of that group.

Why this thread even exists is disappointing. Are we that venal that we find it necessary to offend our own base of support? To what end? Does it make us feel better about ourselves by denigrating others, instead of actually working towards a common goal?

If I offended anyone, be advised that racism, overt or covert, offends me mightily, as well. I respond to it immediately.
 
The belief that the gun rights movement is populated by "conservative middle class white Christian with a lot a latent racism and the impression he's being downtrodden" and the "overtly racist redneck hillbilly who's still pissed off that the South lost and that states don't have the right to decide for themselves if people should be property and women should be able vote." Or possibly "patriotic American who believes that maybe the Bill of Rights shouldn't apply if it means we can catch more terrorists" is, in and of itself, a racist statement. A disgusting one at that.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how the second two are in any way racist...though I'll admit that my mention of "white" specifically in the first one could be regarded as such. I just see in a lot of whites nowadays, particularly of the conservative and/or Christian variety, the notion that they're being "oppressed." When in reality we're doing just fine.

But my point is that the entirety of the second two, as well as a majority of the first, are personality traits that have nothing to do with race and are entirely by choice.

Let's leave the colors of skin out of your treatise, as well as the amorphous "Christian" heading. As the vast majority of the inhabitants of the United States fit into some part of your denigrates class. Yet, they don't preach, or practice, violent behavior, or advocate the overthrow of the existing government, you're on shaky ground. The very politicians you speak for are a part of that group.
Click to expand...

I used "white" and "Christian" as part of the foundations of the stereotype I was describing...I was not intending that description to include all whites or all Christians, which was obvious by reading the three words that preceded those and the twelve that followed. Of course a majority of Americans fit into some part of that class...but that's not relevant because my statement was only meant to apply to those that fit into most/all of that class.

Also, I think you may have missed my point. I wasn't saying anybody advocated the overthrow of the government. The most likely form of tyranny right now is either tyranny against the minority by the majority...or tyranny by the government in the name of fighting terrorism. Both accomplished through law, not force. Often in the former and sometimes in the latter those who defend and exercise their second amendment rights are the very people perpetrating/supporting that tyranny; hence, the ineffectiveness of the second amendment at actually fighting tyranny.

Why this thread even exists is disappointing. Are we that venal that we find it necessary to offend our own base of support? To what end? Does it make us feel better about ourselves by denigrating others, instead of actually working towards a common goal?
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that many of us actually find our own base of support, at least much of it, to be offensive. And think that maybe that portion of our base of support is doing more harm than good.
 
All:

Re laying the blame for the present state of existing anti gun laws, one facet looks as if it might not be receiving sufficient attention from posters.

That facet of the thing is the lying, the double-talking of and by MEDIA. For instance, how many tons of coal have been burned generating electricity needed for broadcasting, how many tree’s have been cut down to produce the paper, both of which have played significant roles in spewing forth the above mentioned half-truths and outright lies produced and distributed by broadcast as well as print media.

When next you want to lay the blame for present situations, look in the above mentioned direction. And by the way, do not forget the sloth, ignorance and downright stupidity of some of our fellow gun owners either.

Never forget the role in the above mentioned already played by, and still being played by media.
 
"conservative middle class white Christian with a lot a latent racism and the impression he's being downtrodden" and the "overtly racist redneck hillbilly who's still pissed off that the South lost and that states don't have the right to decide for themselves if people should be property and women should be able vote."
Click to expand...

I fail to see how the second two are in any way racist..
Click to expand...

Perhaps the use of the word "racist" in describing the people's attributes?

I just see in a lot of whites nowadays, particularly of the conservative and/or Christian variety, the notion that they're being "oppressed." When in reality we're doing just fine.
Click to expand...

If a person feels "oppressed" then, by your description they are racist? Your description as having "latent racism" is, in and of itself, a racist statement.

I see a LOT of Hispanic people claiming that they are being oppressed here, and so do you. Every time that there is a demonstration involving illegals, that is brought forward. Would you also describe them as possessing latent racism?

Watch the news as Rev. Al and Jesse rant on about "oppression", demanding that "this and that" be made racially representative. The Atlanta Braves "didn't have enough Blacks". The opposite, however, is much harder to find. Should the NHL be required to have a representative proportion of Latinos, Whites, and Orientals? How about a White Entertainment Network, dedicated to white programming only? Or perhaps an "Ivory" magazine, with a white-centric content throughout? Having a White Police Officers Association would be met with derision, and claims of racism. Yet, the Black Police Officers Associations are accomodated without comment.

If these aren't examples of racism, then neither is the attitudes of other races, as long as they aren't in violation of the Civil Rights of others.

What this, and your comments of racism, have at all to do with the presentation of those for or against the Second Amendment is only an aberration in the conversation.

Also, I think you may have missed my point. I wasn't saying anybody advocated the overthrow of the government. The most likely form of tyranny right now is either tyranny against the minority by the majority...or tyranny by the government in the name of fighting terrorism. Both accomplished through law, not force. Often in the former and sometimes in the latter those who defend and exercise their second amendment rights are the very people perpetrating/supporting that tyranny; hence, the ineffectiveness of the second amendment at actually fighting tyranny.
Click to expand...

Interesting use of words, but utterly meaningless. Exactly WHO, in supporting their Second Amendment Rights, are the ones perpetrating/supporting tyranny? Remember the democratic principles of government, even in a Republic such as ours? "Tyranny of the majority" is a cute catch-phrase, usually brought out to force the will of the minority to be impressed upon the decisions of the majority.

I was not intending that description to include all whites or all Christians, which was obvious by reading the three words that preceded those and the twelve that followed. Of course a majority of Americans fit into some part of that class...
Click to expand...

What three? "Today are the"? What eleven? You finish by closing the quote. That entire paragraph is an insult to thinking people. You are the one stating what "many people" have as an opinion, and you do so without any qualifying source. Your entire description of Southern people and their view of state's rights reads like a quote from Louis Farrakhan. It has nothing to do with the subject, detracts from civilized conversation, and is unsupportable via factual evidence.

Might I suggest that, should you wish to visit the issue of racism versus the Second Amendment, you attack it head on. Bring supporting documentation, and make it it's own thread. Nobody brought the issue of racism alive until you did. Your personal opinions about what others actions represent are without authority or proof. They are insulting and unsuitable and are too easily applied.
 
Don't have time to respond to everything, I'll be back later.

What three? "Today are the"? What eleven? You finish by closing the quote.
Click to expand...

The three that precede "white Christian" and the twelve that follow. I bolded them for you.

"conservative middle class white Christian with a lot a latent racism and the impression he's being downtrodden"
Click to expand...

So that's a little more restrictive than just "white Christians." Also, calling somebody racist is not in itself racist, unless I suggest that all whites are racist. Which, you know, we aren't.
 
Interesting use of words, but utterly meaningless. Exactly WHO, in supporting their Second Amendment Rights, are the ones perpetrating/supporting tyranny?
Click to expand...
I'd point to some of the conservative christians, the religious right that wants to legislate the bible into law. The ones that want to ban stem cell research because god wrote a chapter on medical science I've never come across. The ones that want to ban abortion because they believe a single-cell has the same rights as the living, breathing person that single cell inhabits. The ones that want to "protect marriage" by saying that I'm not worthy of the same benefits and equal protection under the law because of my preference. The ones that raise their hands when asked who doesn't believe in evolution, the ones who want to infringe upon free speech because naughty words and boobies make jesus sad.

The idea of a tyranny by religious zealots is far more frightening than the idea of tyranny by a socialist government, and for good reason.
 
overtly racist redneck hillbilly who's still pissed off that the South lost and that states don't have the right to decide for themselves if people should be property and women should be able vote
Click to expand...

Overtly racist? Don't think so. Redneck hillbilly? Not me. Pissed off that the South lost? That's history. States don't have the right to decide for themselves....

The first three attributes are no more than disgusting efforts to link negative stereotypes to the fourth point of view. Yes, I believe in the concept of representative democracy within the framework of a republic as created by the Founders. Such a republican framework provides the opportunity for the expression of divergent views in different states. And, in a free marketplace of ideas, good ideas will prevail, as we have witnessed with the spread of CCW in recent years.

The people who spew the "racist redneck Southerners want to keep you backwards" rhetoric do so as the ugly counterpoint to their advocacy of all-encompassing federalism. The Founders did not create, and warned against, a "comprehensive government" in which everyone had to march in lock-step under a single set of rules.
 
Another thread designed to further divide gun owners with the race card, the economic card, the Elitist card... One continues to wonder what the motivation of some people around here really is...
 
The idea of a tyranny by religious zealots is far more frightening than the idea of tyranny by a socialist government, and for good reason.
Click to expand...

Tyranny is tyranny....all is frightening. Atheistic Socialist/Communist dictatroships are just as dangerous...think Stalinist Russia.


Orwell had a good handle on this stuff...
 
Tyranny is tyranny....all is frightening. Atheistic Socialism is just as dangerous...think Stalinist Russia.


Orwell had a good handle on this stuff...
Click to expand...
Certainly, it's just a lot easier to fight against people who can be reasoned with and understand logic instead of those that justify everything with their imaginary friend.
 
Certainly, it's just a lot easier to fight against people who can be reasoned with and understand logic instead of those that justify everything with their imaginary friend.
Click to expand...

Ever try reasoning with a Stalin or Hitler??? ;)

Your refer to "God" as an "Imaginary friend" and that is the justification of all things bad. I find it is often easier to reason with people that hold themselves to a higher moral standard because of relgious conviction then those that use evolution and natural selection (i.e. Social DArwinism) to justify eradicating individuals who are "inferior". That may not be a majority (just like religious extremists are not the majority), but there are people like that that misuse info.

My point is you are making a bit of a blanket statement about people who prescribe to the belief in a supreme diety. I am trying to demonstrate that Tyranny is tyranny and it doesn't matter what beliefs an individual has....if they are interested in dominating another, they will do it and use whatever they can to justify it (think the pigs in animal farm). You honestly can't reason with either the religious tyrant or the socialist tyrant. A tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant.

See, you cannot prove the non-existence or existence of God...ATheism, Christianity, Islam, etc. all have to be taken on faith at some point. Even philosophy and science do eventually have to intersect at some point in your beliefs because some things are outside the realm of empirical observation. :)

I think that was the original intention of this thread...the negation of stereotypes because they have a negative effect on the discussion of "gun control" as a whole. Stereotypes are illogical at best....they pretty much serve to fuel irrational behavior and conclusions. They serve to divide, not unify.
 
By the way, Bull Connor was a Democrat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Connor

In one of Kerry's televised campaign ads, the images of the authorities driving away blacks with fire hoses was used to imply that the evil Republicans would do anything to dissuade voters for the other party. The irony, of course, was those authorities were Democrats.
 
Atheistic Socialism is just as dangerous...think Stalinist Russia.
Click to expand...

Equating Stalinist Russia with socialism is like cooking up and laying on the table a medium rare garlic/mustard crusted Prime Rib Roast (with garlic mashed pototoes, fresh steamed asparagus with hollandaise and creme brule for desert), and then handing your eager guest an Arby's Roast beef sandwich and an empanada that you found under the seat of a 73 VW bug.

WildhowsthatforanalogyAlaska
 
Ever try reasoning with a Stalin or Hitler???
Click to expand...
Still would have been easier to reason with the people supporting Stalin's regime than it would be to reason with those that supported King George or any other leader of a theocracy.

Your refer to "God" as an "Imaginary friend" and that is the justification of all things bad. I find it is often easier to reason with people that hold themselves to a higher moral standard because of relgious conviction then those that use evolution and natural selection (i.e. Social DArwinism) to justify eradicating individuals who are "inferior".
Click to expand...
Yeah I prefer it when morals are based on reason and logic as opposed to fairy tales. Social Darwinism is a different concept than evolution and natural selection. One is a biological science, the other is a sociological construct.

My point is you are making a bit of a blanket statement about people who prescribe to the belief in a supreme diety. I am trying to demonstrate that Tyranny is tyranny and it doesn't matter what beliefs an individual has....if they are interested in dominating another, they will do it and use whatever they can to justify it (think the pigs in animal farm). You honestly can't reason with either the religious tyrant or the socialist tyrant. A tyrant is a tyrant is a tyrant.
Click to expand...
You can indeed reason with both tyrants, only the social tyrant simply needs to reform his ideas of economics and justice while the religious tyrant needs to reform his ideas of reality as a whole. The latter is much more difficult, especially when there are crowds of people who all believe in the same supreme diety just because their parents have told them to.

See, you cannot prove the non-existence or existence of God...ATheism, Christianity, Islam, etc. all have to be taken on faith at some point. Even philosophy and science do eventually have to intersect at some point in your beliefs.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism

Most atheists are what most people call agnostics.
I do agree though, there are nutjobs from every walk of life and belief system .

I think that was the original intention of this thread...the negation of stereotypes because they have a negative effect on the discussion of "gun control" as a whole. Stereotypes are illogical at best....they pretty much serve to fuel irrational behavior and conclusions.
Click to expand...
No doubt, but given the option of fighting against socialist atheists or religious zealouts I'll take the atheists any day of the week. The simple point is that most liberals feel the same way; the threat of having to fight off a bunch of bible thumpers with guns is a lot more worrisome than the threat of having to fight off a government that taxes them to give children medical care. A lot of people would much rather be subjected to a country where half their income is taken away in an attempt to help others rather than be subjected to a country where their lives are under the the control of an old book.
 
"their lives are under the the control of an old book"

Oh yeah...all that peace and love is SCARY:eek:

The world would be a much better place if we all ignored the call to love one another and not be judgemental :rolleyes:

Once again you are confusing religion with the actions of some (supposedly) religous people

Possibly the result of thumping the Bible rather than reading it

Servo is right on

Please don't confuse the excuses with the real motivation behind the acts

Your brush is far too broad for this painting
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top